Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Mashaji Nathuji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 July, 2015

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

       R/CR.MA/9568/2015                                   JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 9568 of 2015



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
============================================================
====
1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
    to see the judgment ?

2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
    the judgment ?

4   Whether this case involves a substantial question of
    law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
    India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                  MASHAJI NATHUJI THAKOR....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VR HALANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.2
============================================================
====
        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
                  KUMARI

                                Date : 21/07/2015


                                ORAL JUDGMENT

R/CR.MA/9568/2015 JUDGMENT

1. Rule.   Mr.L.B.   Dabhi,   learned   Additional   Public  Prosecutor,   waives   service   of   notice   of   Rule   for  respondent No.1. Mr.Venugopal Patel, learned advocate,  states that he has received instructions to appear on  behalf of respondent No.2 and he would be filing his  Vakalatnama,   in   the   Registry.  He  is  permitted   to   do  so. He waives service of notice of Rule for the said  respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances in  which   the   matter   arises,   the   application   is   being  heard   and   decided   finally,   at   this   stage,   with   the  consent   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective  parties.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of  Criminal   Procedure,   1973   ("the   Code"   for   short)   has  been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside  the   FIR   being   C.R.   No.I­29   of   2008   registered   with  Agthala   Police   Station,   Taluka   Deesa,   District  Banaskantha,   on   19.05.2008   for   offence   punishable  under   Section   408   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   the  other   consequential   proceedings   including   Criminal  Case No.2299 of 2012.

3. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that  Page 2 of 7 R/CR.MA/9568/2015 JUDGMENT the applicant was working as Supervisor at Ramun Depot  of   respondent   No.2­   complainant.   The   applicant   was  required   to   sell   the   different   fertilizers   from   the  depot to the farmers. The complainant has alleged that  the   applicant   has   committed   misappropriation   for   an  amount of Rs.3,47,087.80 paisa by selling 6340 tons of  fertilizers   and   not   crediting   the   amount   in   the  account of respondent No.2. Under the circumstances,  the FIR in question came to be registered.

4. It   is   the   case   of   the   applicant,   before   this  Court, that a dispute has now been amicably resolved  between him and respondent No.2­complainant, who has  filed   an   affidavit   stating   that   the   applicant   has  repaid the entire amount and has been terminated from  service, therefore, no further action is required to  be  taken  against   him.   That  respondent   No.2   does  not  wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against  the applicant and has no objection to the quashing and  setting aside of the FIR in question. 

5. Mr.   V.R.   Halani,   learned   advocate   for   the  applicant,   submits   that   as   the   dispute   has   been  amicably settled between the applicant and respondent  Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/9568/2015 JUDGMENT No.2­complainant   and   as   the   entire   amount   has   been  repaid   by   the   applicant,   the   prayers   made   in   the  application may be granted. 

6. In   support   of   his   submissions,   learned   advocate  for   the   applicant   has   placed   reliance   upon   the  judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of  Madan   Mohan   Abbot   v.   State   of   Punjab  reported   in  (2008)4  582  and  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.

7. Mr.L.B.   Dabhi,   learned   Additional   Public  Prosecutor   for   respondent   No.1,   has   objected   to   the  prayer made by the applicant and respondent No.2 and  submits that the law may be permitted to run its own  course.

8. Mr.   Venugopal   Patel,   learned   advocate   for  respondent No.2, has reiterated the stand taken by the  said   respondent   in   the   affidavit  affirmed  by  him   on  03.07.2015 wherein it is stated that the applicant has  repaid the entire amount and has been terminated from  service.   The   Gujarat   State   Co­operative   Marking  Federation   Limited,   of   which   respondent   No.2   is   the  Assistant Manager, does not want to proceed with the  Page 4 of 7 R/CR.MA/9568/2015 JUDGMENT criminal proceedings against the applicant and has no  objection, if the FIR in question is quashed and set  aside.

9. The complainant is present in­person before this  Court and has been identified by his learned advocate.  He  has   reiterated   the   stand   taken   by   him   in   the  affidavit.

10. This   Court   has   heard   learned   counsel   for   the  respective parties and perused the averments made in  the   application   as   well   as   the   contents   of   the  affidavit.

11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra),  the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that  in disputes where the question involved is of a purely  personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept  the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings,  since keeping the matter alive, with no possibility of  a   result   in   favour   of   the   prosecution,   is   a   luxury  which   the   courts,   grossly   overburdened   as   they   are,  cannot afford. The time so saved can be utilised in  deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. Page 5 of 7

R/CR.MA/9568/2015 JUDGMENT

12. This   position   of   law   has   been   reiterated   in   a  more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case  of  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   (supra).

13. In view of  settlement between the applicant and  respondent   No.2­complainant   and   considering   the  principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in  Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   (supra),  the  following order is passed:

The  C.R. No.I­29 of 2008 registered with Agthala  Police   Station,   Taluka   Deesa,   District  Banaskantha, on 19.05.2008 for offence punishable  under   Section   408   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and  the   other   consequential   proceedings   including  Criminal Case No.2299 of 2012, are hereby quashed  and set aside. 

14. The   application   is   allowed   in   the   above   terms.  Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

Direct Service is permitted.

Page 6 of 7

          R/CR.MA/9568/2015                               JUDGMENT




                                           (SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
piyush




                             Page 7 of 7